Terrorism Threat at All Time High Yet We're Safer?

Everyone with a nuclear-bomb proof shelter under their place of work (helps if it is the White House) is completely safe. Anyone else? It's iffy.

0 Replies

I just learned that elementary schools in my town are practicing "bomb shelter" drills. I am very disturbed by this. If they had been doing it all along, that would be one thing...

0 Replies

Bush has dug the US into a hole that will take many years to dig out of. I'm going camping in northern Canada this August. If a bomb falls at that time I should be safe. Maybe.

0 Replies

Safer. The intelligence community must have told him so after Cheney told them.

Consider he still thinks we were justified invading Iraq.

0 Replies

Safer than when?

We are safer now than we were Sept. 10.

Probably not as safe as we were in 1904.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Safer than when?

We are safer now than we were Sept. 10.

Probably not as safe as we were in 1904.

How so?

Let's see a report done by the Government and EXPERTS said we aren't safer and since going into Iraq are even less so.

We just found out both the US and UK messed up intelligence for going to war. The US has messed it up for Iraq AND 9.11.

Reports have shown HUGE holes in security at Nuclear and Chemcial plants.

So I'm curious as to why anyone would say we are safer. Even more confusing is the President saying we are safer while the Director of Homeland Security is telling us we will be attacked, On top of that we have a National Security Director who just a few days ago went on National TV and had NO idea about any plan in case of an attack before the election. Rolling Eyes

Oh yea we are much safer then we were in 1904 and pigs fly.

0 Replies

Redheat wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Safer than when?

We are safer now than we were Sept. 10.

Probably not as safe as we were in 1904.

How so?

Let's see a report done by the Government and EXPERTS said we aren't safer and since going into Iraq are even less so.

We just found out both the US and UK messed up intelligence for going to war. The US has messed it up for Iraq AND 9.11.

Reports have shown HUGE holes in security at Nuclear and Chemcial plants.

So I'm curious as to why anyone would say we are safer. Even more confusing is the President saying we are safer while the Director of Homeland Security is telling us we will be attacked, On top of that we have a National Security Director who just a few days ago went on National TV and had NO idea about any plan in case of an attack before the election.

Oh yea we are much safer then we were in 1904 and pigs fly.

In the best interest of my sanity I am going to keep this brief.

We are a million times safer than we were Sept 10th because we are on alert and aware that we can be attacked at any time. We have officials doing a different job with different rules than what was in place Sept. 10. If you can't see any difference between today's level of security and safety when compared with sept. 10, then you may want to get to an optomatrist and get the peepers checked.

I said that we are NOT as safe as we were in 1904. In other words, 100 years ago, we were not at risk of a nuclear attack from an extremist group bent on the destruction of everything that isn't Islam.

Please take the time to read what is posted.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Redheat wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Safer than when?

We are safer now than we were Sept. 10.

Probably not as safe as we were in 1904.

How so?

Let's see a report done by the Government and EXPERTS said we aren't safer and since going into Iraq are even less so.

We just found out both the US and UK messed up intelligence for going to war. The US has messed it up for Iraq AND 9.11.

Reports have shown HUGE holes in security at Nuclear and chemcial plants.

So I'm curious as to why anyone would say we are safer. Even more confusing is the President saying we are safer while the Director of Homeland Security is telling us we will be attacked, On top of that we have a National Security Director who just a few days ago went on National TV and had NO idea about any plan in case of an attack before the election.

Oh yea we are much safer then we were in 1904 and pigs fly.

In the best interest of my sanity I am going to keep this brief.

We are a million times safer than we were Sept 10th because we are on alert and aware that we can be attacked at any time. We have officials doing a different job with different rules than what was in place Sept. 10. If you can't see any difference between today's level of security and safety when compared with sept. 10, then you may want to get to an optomatrist and get the peepers checked.

I said that we are NOT as safe as we were in 1904. In other words, 100 years ago, we were not at risk of a nuclear attack from an extremist group bent on the destruction of everything that isn't Islam.

Please take the time to read what is posted.

You got me I did read that last part wrong you have my apologies.

Being on "alert" doesn't make us that much safer since we aren't really sure what we are on alert for. Plus with genius ideas like duct tape, color fear systems and looking out for people who are "too calm" I have to entertain my doubts as to the abilities of some of our security leaders.

Would people be more "alert" on an Airplane and more likely to fight back? You bet. What do you think the chances are that the terrorist will try it again knowing this?

We can ready ourselves but one bomb at a Chemical plant and all that "alertness" won't do a bit of good. Not to mention that we are still not prepared for a major crisis like that.

A few dirty bombs going off again will not save us if we are "alert"

ONE nuclear device in a urban area will reek more damage then you can fathom

We need to do many things to even begin to contend to be "safer". There are times in history when Americans were "safer" then other times but today we are as unsafe as we can possibly get.

0 Replies

Well, the fact that we are stirring up huge amounts of new terrorists through our heavy-handed actions in the middle east might make us a little less safe than before.

If the differences in today's security are not greater than the increased amount of terrorist activity that is levelled our way, then we would NOT be safer. I think it's hard to say right now if we are or not, we will see.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

We would have been safer if we had stayed the course in Afghanistan, captured and or killed Bin Laden and above all not attacked Iraq. Since we did none of these things we are in far more danger than we would or should have been. And the increased level danger is directly attributable to Bush's ill considered actions.

0 Replies

http://csmonitor.com/2004/0715/csmimg/cartoon.jpg

0 Replies

Terrorism expert on Charlie Rose last night says there is no doubt that the Iraq invasion has made us less safe. The kicker is that, according to him, we can't just pull out if we do that Iraq will become the new Afghanistan, the new haven for breeding and harboring terrorists. How ironic, huh? I will try to find a link to this interview later, it was quite an eye opener.

0 Replies

Harper
You do not have to be a terrorism expert to come to that conclusion. All you have to be able to do is connect the dots. Something this administration seems incapable of doing.

0 Replies

U.S., world clearly are safer
Condoleezza Rice
USA Today

Lord Butler's panel released a report this week on the accuracy of Britain's intelligence prior to the Iraq war. It is the latest addition to a list of investigations, including those by former U.S. weapons inspector David Kay and the Senate Intelligence Committee.

None disputes that Saddam Hussein had contacts with and ties to terrorists. None disputes that he possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), used them against innocents, desired to resume their production and had capabilities that would have let him do so over time. None disputes his 12-year history of deceit, obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections or material breach of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions. And no one disputes his failure to prove he had destroyed his WMD stockpiles as required by U.N. Resolution 1441.

In choosing a course of action in Iraq, President Bush had to consider these facts and answer simple questions: Could the international community continue to accept Saddam's 12-year defiance of its will, or would the world be safer if the word of the United Nations were seen to count and have consequences? Could the U.S., in the post-9/11 world, continue to hope for the best from Saddam, or would America be safer with his removal? The president and an international coalition concluded that Saddam had to go, and events since his removal have proved this judgment right. Iraq is no longer supporting terrorists, threatening the region or pursuing WMD.

Our efforts in Iraq have been critical to success in the global war on terror. Afghanistan today is an emerging democracy, no longer providing sanctuary to al-Qaeda. Libya's Moammar Gadhafi has surrendered his nuclear-weapons program. Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan's secret nuclear-proliferation network, which sold technology and know-how to some of the world's most dangerous regimes, has been exposed. And the governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are U.S. allies in the fight to root out terrorism. All of these developments have made America and the world safer places.

As democracy gains in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are reminded that no democratic nation in the world threatens America. Saddam's removal has advanced peace and democracy throughout the broader Middle East. America and the world are clearly safer with this tyrant in the jail cell he has earned.

link

0 Replies

Yeah because Condi is always so truthful and upright in her assessments and assertions.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

America and the world are clearly safer with this tyrant in the jail cell he has earned.

I missed something. America was threatened by Saddam Hussain?

0 Replies

I saw a news report the other night about how due to budget cutbacks Oregon has ONE part time officer patrolling it's entire coastline...so much for on alert at all times......if we brought home all our troops we could probably put a man just about every mile on all our borders 24/7....you know, homeland security.....no oil profits that way though....

0 Replies

I hope that in some ways we are safer now than a few years ago, but not from small scale terrorism. There appears to be an increased awareness around the world of the state terrorism that USA has continuously inflicted on the rest of the world after WW2. This awareness might eventually result in a changed attitude inside the US and that in turn can hopefully stop or at least reduce the state terrorism carried out by that nation.

We might have to suffer another 20 years of state terrorism before the USA collapses, as Johan Galtung has predicted.

0 Replies

Mr. Grey
Most of us US citizens dont have any idea how much the CIA and our military have formented terriosm through out the world. Our news services just dont cover it. Unamerican you know. Iraq, Iran, most of the
south american and central american governments have been either established or destroyed by our intellegance services but no one calls attention to it.

0 Replies

Terrorism Threat at All Time High Yet We're Safer?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know